7. PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES V.

TODARO, 524 SCRA 153

(2007)

FACTS
 Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed with the RTC a complaint for Sum of Money
and Damages with Preliminary Attachment against Pioneer International
Limited (PIL), Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI), Pioneer Philippines
Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald) and Philip J. Klepzig
(Klepzig).
 Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of Australia and is principally engaged in the ready-mix concrete
and concrete aggregates business; PPHI is the company established by PIL
to own and hold the stocks of its operating company in the Philippines; PCPI
is the company established by PIL to undertake its business of ready-mix
concrete, concrete aggregates and quarrying operations in the Philippines;
McDonald is the Chief Executive of the Hongkong office of PIL; and, Klepzig
is the President and Managing Director of PPHI and PCPI;
 Todaro has been the managing director of BetonvalReadyconcrete, Inc.
(Betonval), a company engaged in pre-mixed concrete and concrete
aggregate production;
 he resigned from Betonval in February 1996;
 in May 1996, PIL contacted Todaro and asked him if he was available to join
them in connection with their intention to establish a ready-mix concrete
plant and other related operations in the Philippines;
 Todaro informed PIL of his availability and interest to join them;
subsequently, PIL and Todaro came to an agreement wherein the former
consented to engage the services of the latter as a consultant for two to
three months, after which, he would be employed as the manager of PIL's
ready-mix concrete operations should the company decide to invest in the
Philippines; subsequently, PIL started its operations in the Philippines;
however, it refused to comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a
permanent basis. Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and Klepzig
separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the
complaint states no cause of action, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the complaint, as the same is within the jurisdiction of
the NLRC, and that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. RTC dismissed the MTD which was
affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE
W/N the RTC should have dismissed the case on the basis of forum non
conveniens due to a presence of a foreign element

RULING
 NO. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of
said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the case of
Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over
the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the
Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision."
 The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a
ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules
of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. This Court
further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the trial court to
abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only
after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances require the court’s desistance; and that the propriety of
dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens
requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly considered a
matter of defense.

 Note: the case was also being dismissed on the ground that there was no
cause of action but SC held that there was cause of action, to sustain a
motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show
that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been
defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. And it was
also argued in this case that jurisdiction is with the NLRC and not with
the RTC. SC held it was with RTC, SC has consistently held that where
no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no
issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code,
other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the RTC
that has jurisdiction.